Title: Rotherham Post by: Power to people on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 17:35:54 I read today that apparently Rotherham are expecting a 20 point deduction as well now....looks like L2 relegation battle is all but secured thanks to the FL
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: michael on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 17:36:55 Bournemouth still to come...
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 17:37:51 And it so easily could have been us too.
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: leefer on Thursday, July 31, 2008, 14:59:27 Luton v Rotherham is going to be a real six pointer!
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Whitey_TRFC on Monday, August 4, 2008, 18:46:55 :yikes: :jawdrop: Two heavy point deductions, two relegation spots, two clubs joining Wrexscum in the Blue Square Premier next season. The Football League have turned evil! Shame, was hoping Jester :jester: would get relegated this season. >:D
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: lambourn red on Monday, August 4, 2008, 19:24:02 Just hope the Pox stay down their another season as it is going to be harder and harder for them to get out if bigger clubs keep getting relegated
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: dell boy on Monday, August 4, 2008, 19:28:16 Just hope the Pox stay down their another season as it is going to be harder and harder for them to get out if bigger clubs keep getting relegated I hear what you are saying, but I would like to see the Pox come back into the ranks. Flipping miss not playing them. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: suttonred on Monday, August 4, 2008, 19:28:52 Have they had a deduction today? Cant see anything.
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Rich Pullen on Monday, August 4, 2008, 19:30:05 Have they had a deduction today? Cant see anything. Me thinks it was a misleading comment - I couldn't find anything. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: reeves4england on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 14:02:09 I hear what you are saying, but I would like to see the Pox come back into the ranks. Flipping miss not playing them. You might want to re-write that last bit...Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Power to people on Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 16:19:07 I think they are still waiting to find out, Bournemouth have not exited admin yet.
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Batch on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:45:50 -17 points for Rotherham apparently
http://www.clubfanzine.com/rochdale/v2.showNews.php?id=12866 http://www.rotherham.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=118708 Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Rich Pullen on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:46:10 -17 points for Rotherham apparently Ouch (if true). Teams such as Barnet, Chester, Bury, Dagenham & Redbridge will be happy that poor business conduct of other clubs basically save them from relegation. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: michael on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:47:35 You can get 4-1 on Luton staying up.
Is the -17 being widely reported? Forgetting Bournemouth, I'm sure there will be more in both bottom divisions before the end of the season. Banks won't lend money to football clubs any more. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Bogus Dave on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:48:55 17?? thats abit odd
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Batch on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:49:49 Daddies (sauce, geddit) added
http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/News/FLNewsDetail/0,,10794~1359838,00.html Quote FL BOARD STATEMENT At its meeting this evening, the Board of Directors of The Football League considered applications for membership of The League relating to Rotherham United and AFC Bournemouth. The Board also considered Rotherham United's request to play its matches at Don Valley Stadium, Sheffield. - Rotherham United The Board considered an application from a company - Rotherham United (New Co.) - which has applied to join League 2 in place of the existing club, which is currently in administration. Rotherham United (Old Co.) has been unable to agree a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) with its creditors and as a consequence is unable to satisfy the normal conditions of The League's insolvency policy for exiting administration. The Board decided, however, that it was prepared to exercise its absolute discretion under the 'exceptional circumstances' provisions of its insolvency policy. Therefore, in accordance with recent precedent, the Board has made the following offer to Rotherham United (New Co.). Acceptance of the Board's offer is a pre-requisite to the exercise of that discretion: 1. The club will be deducted 17 points for the 2008/09 season. This takes into account the fact that this is the club's second insolvency event in recent seasons. 2. The club must provide a legal waiver indicating that it will not challenge or appeal this decision. 3. The club must undertake to return to Rotherham within four years and provide an irrevocable bond of £750,000. This will be forfeited if the club fails to return within that timeframe, as will the club's membership of The Football League. 4. The club must pay unsecured creditors the amount offered at the time of the CVA hearing. The Board's offer is subject to the club agreeing these conditions, and formal agreements being signed, by 12.00 noon on Friday. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Rich Pullen on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:50:37 17?? thats abit odd That's what I thought - someone will be able to explain. Although I'm inclined to think that those in charge pick a number out of the hat and that number decides the punishment. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Batch on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:52:16 On the Muff:
Quote - AFC Bournemouth The Board also considered an application under the 'exceptional circumstances' provisions of its insolvency policy relating to AFC Bournemouth. However, the Board is not yet satisfied with the viability of the new company's proposals and consequently it has been asked to reflect further on its position. The Board will meet tomorrow to consider the matter again. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: michael on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:52:59 So basically it's 15 points for not agreeing a CVA (which is impossible thanks to FL rules), plus an extra 2 points for having a history of bad finances.
If this happened to us we'd be proper fucked yes? Gawd bless you Andrew Fitton. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Rich Pullen on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:53:35 Bournemouth will be 'punished' though - I'm going to predict -15.
Thank gawd for Andrew Fitton indeed. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Batch on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:57:00 If this happened to us we'd be proper fucked yes? Gawd bless you Andrew Fitton. Seconded, though I'd still like confirmation that it is Andronikou that gets strung up by his meat and two veg rather than the club regarding "non-completion" (signoff) of our very own CVA! Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Dazzza on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 19:59:01 That's an interesting one in Rotherham’s case and a little reminiscent of the Dongs albeit under different circumstances.
I wonder had the shit hit the fan we could have manoeuvred a similar deal. Out of interest who do they stiff by only paying off the secured creditors? Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: michael on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 20:00:57 Secured creditors being "football" debts yes?
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: michael on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 20:02:07 I must admit I do find this sort of stuff interesting. I like knowing other people's business. Especially when I know it could have been me.
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Batch on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 20:03:20 Ya know, I didn't really think of Rotherham's situation being anything like the Dongs. I guess both moves it could be argued come down to financial survival.
But in Rotherham's case they can't be accused of trying to steal a league place for the city of Sheffield really! Enforced on Rotherham, chosen by the Dongs. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Rich Pullen on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 20:23:30 If Bournemouth get a hefty deduction then, really, Luton are right back in it... They'll still have a mountain to climb - it'll be more Kangchenjunga than Mount Everest!
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Spencer_White on Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 21:14:40 So when are the Dongs moving back to Wimbledon? Where is the timeframe FL?
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: janaage on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 07:56:39 That's what I thought - someone will be able to explain. Although I'm inclined to think that those in charge pick a number out of the hat and that number decides the punishment. Like the opposite of a cup draw, Trevor Brooking puts hand in bowl, swishes the balls around Davies says ""Rotherham Utd will start on" Brooking selects ball, shows number to camera "minus 17pts" "Luton will start on" "minus 30pts" and Bournemouth will start on "minus 21 pts" That concludes the punishment handed out to these three evil sides, see you next summer!! Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Lumps on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 09:19:45 That's an interesting one in Rotherhams case and a little reminiscent of the Dongs albeit under different circumstances. I wonder had the shit hit the fan we could have manoeuvred a similar deal. Out of interest who do they stiff by only paying off the secured creditors? A lot more reminiscent of Rovers move to Twerton Park in Bath to be honest, a temporary move forced by circumstances, that can easily end up lasting a lot longer than planned at a financially unstable club with a small fan base. It's probably that example that the League had in mind with this clause. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: tans on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 09:46:25 So when are the Dongs moving back to Wimbledon? Where is the timeframe FL? Thait is actually a very good point. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Power to people on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 13:15:10 Clubs are finding it near on impossible at the moment to agree a CVA as I beleive that it is HMRC that always votes against and they are always a very large creditor s without their agreement they cannot exit via a CVA.
Unfortunelty you can probably see more clubs being docked points before the end of the season. The FL are making a joke of L2 Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Batch on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 18:06:52 Sky reporting Bournemouth have been deducted 17 points also.
Confirmed on FL website - subject to same terms as Rotherham being accepted (excluding the location bit). Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Rich Pullen on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 18:15:48 Only TWO can go down from L2 - will be interesting to see how they'll do.
Edited. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: michael on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 18:21:46 Shame for Bournemouth really because they only got relegated in the first place because of that shitty 10 point deduction ruling.
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Rich Pullen on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 18:27:07 Shame for Bournemouth really because they only got relegated in the first place because of that shitty 10 point deduction ruling. ...and then managed to get back in it - only to fall at the last hurdle. Bournemouth vs. Weymouth in the Conference in 2009/10 could be a new bitter derby! Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: axs on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 19:15:41 Secured creditors being "football" debts yes? You're starting to sound like Gordon Ramsay so stop it yes? Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: pauld on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 19:48:32 Secured creditors being "football" debts yes? No, don't think so. The distinction between secured and unsecured is that the former have some form of security against the debt, such as the mortgage over the CG lease/chunks of SSW's property that St Modwen had to secure our debt to them. Unsecured creditors are then every other poor sod who's just owed money but has no form of security so has to hang on for whatever they can pick up from the CVA. In our own case, these are the guys waiting for the final distribution from the CVA who Hacker Young are still buggering about. In Rotherham's case, the ruling states that unsecured creditors must be paid what they would have received had there been a CVA ie the 10p in the £ that was offered under the CVA that could not be agreed. So this is the FL making sure they don't get completely stiffed. I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got this arse about faceTitle: Re: Rotherham Post by: ronnie21 on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 20:16:40 Only 3 can go down in L2 - will be interesting to see how they'll do. Sorry, have the rules changed, I thought only two teams dropped into the Conference.Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Bogus Dave on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 20:18:54 i think he meant its out of 3 teams to go down, not 3 go down. duhhh
Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Rich Pullen on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 20:23:50 i think he meant its out of 3 teams to go down, not 3 go down. duhhh Oops. But yes, that is what I meant. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: STFC_Gazzza on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 20:28:25 Clubs are finding it near on impossible at the moment to agree a CVA as I beleive that it is HMRC that always votes against and they are always a very large creditor s without their agreement they cannot exit via a CVA. Unfortunelty you can probably see more clubs being docked points before the end of the season. The FL are making a joke of L2 True... many ex league teams are already heading to the abyss... Halifax has just reformed along with Scarborough etc.. Title: Re: Rotherham Post by: Rich Pullen on Thursday, August 7, 2008, 21:35:07 I find it quite sad that a potential £19.7 million bid for Robinho by Chelsea is more important than Bournemouth's punishment. A stark reminder of what is "important" to the masses these days.
I'm quite aware of the reasons why - but, I still don't like it! |